4 ms·

Title appears to be correct: "Later on Tuesday, a filing from the United States District Court for the District Of Columbia showed that the court had agreed to

by phire 3y ago

Title appears to be correct: "Later on Tuesday, a filing from the United States District Court for the District Of Columbia showed that the court had agreed to grant the SEC’s demands."

ac29 3y ago
Nope, look at the filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.256060/gov.uscourts.dcd.256060.4.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.256... Its a proposed order. for those who dont want to click through, its full of stuff like this: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Defendants show cause, if any, before the Honorable __________ of this Court, at __ o’clock _.m., on the __ day of ____, 2023, in Courtroom _____, United States Courthouse"
- tedunangst 3y ago
  First time court tourists are often surprised that you can write your own order for the judge to sign, and it sure sounds official, but it's missing the magic signature that makes it go.
gpm 3y ago
I think the author of the article misunderstood. In the article the words "a filing" link to attachment 1 to docket entry 4, titled "Text of Proposed Order" Further the docket indicates that sometime today (Wednesday) the court scheduled a hearing on the 13th to consider this motion (docket entry 4). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-binance-holdings-limited/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/securities-and... As tedunangst says below, this is common and doesn't mean the judge agreed with you. It just makes it procedurally easy for the judge to agree with you. The judge might not sign it at all. Might edit it and then sign it. Might write their own version that says something else. Etc.
- phire 3y ago
  Yeah, looks like you are correct. I only checked that the title matched the contents of the article, not that the article was correctly researched.

by phire 3y ago

Title appears to be correct: "Later on Tuesday, a filing from the United States District Court for the District Of Columbia showed that the court had agreed to grant the SEC’s demands."

ac29 3y ago

Nope, look at the filing: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.256060/gov.uscourts.dcd.256060.4.1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.256... Its a proposed order. for those who dont want to click through, its full of stuff like this: "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Defendants show cause, if any, before the Honorable __________ of this Court, at __ o’clock _.m., on the __ day of ____, 2023, in Courtroom _____, United States Courthouse"

tedunangst 3y ago
First time court tourists are often surprised that you can write your own order for the judge to sign, and it sure sounds official, but it's missing the magic signature that makes it go.

gpm 3y ago

I think the author of the article misunderstood. In the article the words "a filing" link to attachment 1 to docket entry 4, titled "Text of Proposed Order" Further the docket indicates that sometime today (Wednesday) the court scheduled a hearing on the 13th to consider this motion (docket entry 4). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-binance-holdings-limited/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67474542/securities-and... As tedunangst says below, this is common and doesn't mean the judge agreed with you. It just makes it procedurally easy for the judge to agree with you. The judge might not sign it at all. Might edit it and then sign it. Might write their own version that says something else. Etc.

phire 3y ago
Yeah, looks like you are correct. I only checked that the title matched the contents of the article, not that the article was correctly researched.